Skip to main content

About your Search

20121106
20121106
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
-determination of israelis and palestinians. as you know, every american president since lyndon johnson tried to stop israel from building settlements on the west bank because they understood those settlements threatened to fore close the possibility of a two-state solution. some presidents pushed hard; some not very hard. at camp david, jimmy carter believed he received assurances that building would stop and self-determination and would commence, but settlement building did not stop and carter and the egyptians for different reasons did not make too much of a fuss. ronald reagan called for a settlement freeze without making a big issue of it. george hw bush made an issue of it paying a steep political price which may have cost him re-election. bill clinton wanted a viable state, and he found settlement building cometted whether israel was headed by labor, and, indeed, accelerated throughout the 1990s. barack obama made a settlement freeze that jumping off point for his peace efforts, and he was smacked down decisively by benjamin netanyahu. the reason is obvious. israel, no matter what coalition was in ch
amounts of foreign aid to the state of egypt. egypt is threatening israel. egypt is threatening the region because of the arab spring. we have to rethink the dollars that we are sending to egypt. we have to say that these dollars are for maintaining a security and peace and if you are not participating, you do not get these dollars. that is job one. we have to continue our commitment of foreign policy to israel. israel is our strongest ally and our sister country come and we need to do everything we can fulfill our to fulfill our commitment. all of the foreign aid is spent right here in america un-american jobs. that is when the requirements. we need to gather up our allies and protect the people who serve in our state department we can secure them, they shouldn't be there. >> moderator: i'm going to go forward, but what you think should be the basic guiding principles, speaking a bit more probably? berg: if you are referring to dollars spent, or in general, our foreign policy, america is the leader of the world. we need to look where there are opportunities to create democracies come and
that hope both here and in israel that the squeeze of sanctions will somehow hasten the regime change in iran. in other words it is some other purpose besides leverage for getting the concessions on the nuclear issue and that isn't withstanding the prospect that even if there were regime change, and i certainly wouldn't advise holding your breath and waiting for it, it would mean whoever comes into power and say they would fold on the nuclear issue, not likely given the broad support that a nuclear program is peaceful nuclear program has in iran. note also that a lot of the u.s. imposed sanctions as embedded in the legislation have had other issues besides the nuclear one stated as a rationale, human rights, that sort of thing, relations with terrorist groups, and so it would be very difficult here on the hill to get back down on that even if the negotiations went well with the iranians. all of these constraints do not go very well for taking advantage of that negotiating space that does exist, and showing flexibility in using sanctions for what they ostensibly ought to be used for wh
very, very firmly by u.s. allies, particularly israel. and someone who is very different by nature with, compared with president obama. melissa: so what do you think he would do on day one that would stop iran in its tracks? >> he has himself said that he is ready to tough inch the sanctions which are already in place. and, i also believe that it would send sufficient signals to tehran they need to capitulate their nuclear program. they have absolutely no opportunity to once more use the delaying tactics to give some kind of negotiations in order to gain time. let's not forget. right now president obama's government is engaged in secret talks with iran. all that sends the wrong signals to the regime in tehran because they believe they can gain time having this kind of negotiations. melissa: i hear you but, say mitt romney were elected and came in with an iron fist. wouldn't that cause them to accelerate the timeline that we better do this quick and because the u.s. is not messing around and they get to the bomb quicker? >> regime has used a differen strategy. as a matter of fact, whenev
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4